Not a time to be a buy-to-let landlord

westernpromise

lisyloo wrote: »

Please explain why.
It's with fairness in mind.
Didn't we ration food in the war? Was that wrong? Should it have gone to the highest bidder instead?

Really I do need you to explain what is astonishing.

BTW - just for clarity, this is tax not eviction. There is a choice, just as there is with cigarettes, alcohol etc.

Because you are proposing to arrogate to the state the right to determine that somebody who has lawfully bought and owns property has less right to occupy it than somebody else, whose claim you consider greater because, well, you just do.

You're arguing for the end of private property, although you probably don;t understand it. In your world you buy a place, pay off the mortgage and then the state comes along and deems that you are "over-consuming" and you are to be taxed out of it (by, in effect, making you buy it all over again).

The state can do that with its own assets but it has no right to do that with other people's private property.

Your rationing wheeze is just as totalitarian. We had rationing in the war and we also in consequence had a black market and people dying from using fake penicillin. All of these are consequences of failing to allow the market to resolve shortages, by diverting supply from wherever a thing is cheap to wherever it is most valuable.

Why not just nationalise all housing (without compensation of course)? Why not nationalise everything? It's worked so well for North Korea.

lisyloo

antrobus wrote: »

I'm not sure what level of care the poster concerned had in mind as far as 'HMO's for old folk' were concerned. It can obviously vary from almhouses at one end of the spectrum, to full blown nursing homes at the other.

Agreed but full blown nursing homes with care available 24x7 would be extremely expensive to provide for people that do not need nursing care. The same is true for residential homes.
Why would anyone want to provide more care than is needed at huge expense if people can take care of themselves to some extent. Most people also wish to retain as much independence ad they can so it's not about being mean. the move in recent years has been to keep people out of care homes for as long as possible. Not just to save funds but also for them to retain as much dignity and independence as possible.

If the suggestion was sheltered accomodation with various levels of assistance then this already exists in the private sector.

lisyloo

westernpromise wrote: »

Because you are proposing to arrogate to the state the right to determine that somebody who has lawfully bought and owns property has less right to occupy it than somebody else, whose claim you consider greater because, well, you just do.

No, it's not an arbitrary decision at all.
The principle is that people who need it to live in have more right to it than people that don't need to live in it and for example are using it for non-essential storage, occasional guests, holidays, hobbies etc.
I am not suggesting it's mandated that they can't have it, but that they contribute through taxation for depriving done else of the living space.

You're arguing for the end of private property, although you probably don;t understand it. In your world you buy a place, pay off the mortgage and then the state comes along and deems that you are "over-consuming" and you are to be taxed out of it (by, in effect, making you buy it all over again).

We are already taxed this way on council tax, so it's not astonishing.

The state can do that with its own assets but it has no right to do that with other people's private property.

Oh yes it can, and it has recently with C24.
You are definitely wrong on that.

Why not nationalise everything? It's worked so well for North Korea.

A million miles from a tax to incentivise/penalise fair behaviour.
Do you think C24 is totalitarian?

cells

antrobus wrote: »

REITs in Germany only date back to 2007.

Most of the German PRS was built by private individuals, and is still owned by private individuals.

REITs are a type of company, eg land securities in the uk is a reit but it existed before reits.

A lot of the stock especially the rental stock must have been built by the german state especially east germany which was communist controlled for over 40 years

System

I am not on top of the amount the government is 'clamping down on' landlords..... if I can put it that way.....


But in the past month:

1. The owner of the property that myself and 5 others live in has got rid of the agent running the property and has now decided to run the property instead.

2. They want to put up the rent in the coming months.

3. They are going to partition off the double garage and rent out half of it to someone as storage.

4. We are supposed to have a cleaner every 2 weeks. Since the change was announced 5 weeks ago - we have had NO cleaner.

5. Rumours have it that the Living Room may be taken away from us and turned into a bedroom.

6. After all the above - what else.....garden rented out as allotment space?, Kitchen rented out to Gordon Ramsey for his next cookery show?


I'm now just wondering if the owner/landlord is doing all this to reap back any extra taxes/charges the government throw at them....


So the government are trying to make being a landlord less desirable?....so that more houses will be available to buy?.....

Well what won't help tenants trying to save for a deposit is that they will likely have to pay more rent = less savings = less chance of getting a mortgage / longer to wait to get a mortgage and house prices are going up huge amounts each year.

+ the potential loss of parts of the homes they are renting = reduced living standard.

buglawton

dburford9 wrote: »

I am not on top of the amount the government is 'clamping down on' landlords..... if I can put it that way.....


But in the past month:

1. The owner of the property that myself and 5 others live in has got rid of the agent running the property and has now decided to run the property instead.

2. They want to put up the rent in the coming months.

3. They are going to partition off the double garage and rent out half of it to someone as storage.

4. We are supposed to have a cleaner every 2 weeks. Since the change was announced 5 weeks ago - we have had NO cleaner.

5. Rumours have it that the Living Room may be taken away from us and turned into a bedroom.

6. After all the above - what else.....garden rented out as allotment space?, Kitchen rented out to Gordon Ramsey for his next cookery show?


I'm now just wondering if the owner/landlord is doing all this to reap back any extra taxes/charges the government throw at them....


So the government are trying to make being a landlord less desirable?....so that more houses will be available to buy?.....

Well what won't help tenants trying to save for a deposit is that they will likely have to pay more rent = less savings = less chance of getting a mortgage / longer to wait to get a mortgage and house prices are going up huge amounts each year.

+ the potential loss of parts of the homes they are renting = reduced living standard.

Could just be... Govt starts to play hardball with landlords. Landlord decides to play hardball with tenants. Welcome to hardball Britain.

lisyloo

dburford9 wrote: »

I am not on top of the amount the government is 'clamping down on' landlords..... if I can put it that way.....

But in the past month.

So what are you and your fellow tenants doing about it?
Are the single/more mobile individuals looking to move elsewhere? Or is thsupply in your town so constrained that the landlord has carte Blanche to do as they wish?

chucknorris

lisyloo wrote: »

So what are you and your fellow tenants doing about it?
Are the single/more mobile individuals looking to move elsewhere? Or is thsupply in your town so constrained that the landlord has carte Blanche to do as they wish?

There is a thread dedicated to this:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5387763

lisyloo

Thanks.
It's a little bewildering as to why they don't just move somewhere else.

mwpt

lisyloo wrote: »

It's a little bewildering as to why they don't just move somewhere else.

I think it' a little bewildering that instead of blaming crud tenant laws and crud landlords, this poster is blaming the government.